This statement is taken from Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. He is talking about Psalm 25 when he claims:
"the individual features are not concrete enough, to refer them directly to historical events in the life of David."
So I understand Lange to be saying that although Psalm 25 might be Davidic, a datum he does not seem to reject, still nothing in the psalm helps us to pin down historical specifics in David's life such that we could determine when he wrote the psalm, etc.
20 comments:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-2/47-2-pp213-233_JETS.pdf
"Although we cannot know the precise occasion of its writing, unless there is compel-
ling evidence to the contrary, one can do little better than accept the tradi-
tional view that the psalm is David’s."
My comment might have been a little cryptic, but just to be clear, I do not deny that the psalm is Davidic. However, some wonder if we can tell exactly when individual psalms were written or under what circumstances they were produced. My view is not always, unless we espeically have assistance from the psalmic superscriptions.
Hermann Gunkel tried to classify the psalms, but much of his work was speculative, IMO. See https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Psalms.html?id=0Y4hAAAAMAAJ
The superscriptions are witnessed in the dss and do not seem to vary much from the mt.
http://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%2025.htm
We do not have a witness in 25 but no reason to think that it was not originally in the manuscripts.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585719?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I have found this useful,
Of particular interest to me is the three witnesses of Psalms 135.
http://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%20135.htm
See footnotes, but this is a different issue altogether.
If I understand you correctly, are you saying Psalm 25 originally had a superscription? I agree, but the superscription just tells us that David wrote the 25th Psalm, right? It doesn't tell us the historical circumstances though--the Sitz im Leben. Psalm 135 DSS is interesting, but like you said, a different issue.
Yes, the Flint article looks useful. I've got a few of his works: good stuff.
I agree that we cannot know the chronology. Not enough data.
For "Sitz im Leben"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2FKHJA-1LH0C&pg=PA336&lpg=PA336&dq=Speaking+of+Jesus:+essays+on+biblical+language,+gospel+narrative++sitz+im+leben&source=bl&ots=ZBq_q94hvL&sig=9ws59xFgP5KbbXhBexszLFdF9UM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvlt68zOncAhUpLsAKHa-SDDQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Speaking%20of%20Jesus%3A%20essays%20on%20biblical%20language%2C%20gospel%20narrative%20%20sitz%20im%20leben&f=false
It seems that how we use the term is important.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/nt-interpretation/09_form-criticism_travis.pdf
By "Sitz-im-Leben or Sitz im Leben, all I mean is the vital historical situation within which a writing was produced. Admittedly, scholars use the word in different ways, but here's one definition from Oxford Biblical Studies:
"A term employed by German Form Critics and one difficult to translate exactly into English. It denotes the social context or ‘life setting’ in which a narrative emerged. The point being made is that particular items in the OT can only be understood when they are related to the culture and social life of ancient Israel."
But my use of Sitz-im-Leben does not mean I buy into Redaktionsgeschichte. And the main point I'm making is that we don't know what was happening in David's life when he wrote Psalm 25. We can speculate, but we cannot know for certain.
I will check out the paper on form criticism. When one college where I teach used to offer many OT and NT classes, I used to teach an introductory OT and another NT class. So I had my share of talking about the Documentary Hypothesis, form criticism, redaction criticism, and source criticism. Again, I'm familiar with Bultmann and company with their form-critical theories, but want to make it clear that I feel it's highly speculative.
I agree that we do not know the precise circumstances that brought about Psalm 25, therefore we cannot attempt to date it. I do think that 25 & 37 are related & it appears that I am not the only one to think this:-
https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/5307/Botha_Relationship%282007%29.pdf?sequence=1
Not that this changes anything as far as fixing this problem.
I do not think that full blown redaction occurred but as per Psalm 135 I see possible fine tuning for altered sensibilities over time. I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest this. One that shows relative adjustment may be the height of Goliath relative to average heights. We know he was above the norm otherwise their would be no point mentioning it in the text.
I was surprised when I learned just how short the average person was in the Medieval period as witnessed by suits of Armour.
I only posted the form criticism document in relation to sitz im leben.
I'm in favor of provisionally dating Psalm 25, but the actual historical events that produced the psalm just don't seem knowable now.
The suggestion about Psalm 25 and Psalm 37 is reasonable to me: I've had similar thoughts/questions about these songs. On the other hand, when you mention fine tuning, it depends on what you mean and to what extent you think it happened.
I accept the Scriptures as they've come down to us; my view of inspiration is "high" or elevated--to put the matter in theological terms. But does that mean I read the Bible without thinking about its contents and how they might have come down to us? No I don't. Furthermore, Jehovah's inspiriation of the Bible allowed for Bible writers to express things in their own idiom/idiolect.
Are the details of the Bible trustworthy in terms of the history, science, georgraphy, and details like Goliath's height? Unless we have reason to believe the stated height is mistaken or was changed years after the biblical accounts were penned, I personally accept what the narrative says. I do this, not just on faith but due to the arduous examination that scholars have undertaken respecting the divine verbum.
Don't the oldest witnesses state Goliath's height as less? The question would be - why would anyone change it in that way? Especially when the account refers to his stature in all witnesses. Also what about Saul at least a head taller than the norm.
This has come down to us because we have the witnesses.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/48/48-4/JETS_48-4_701-714.pdf
As this author notes the height issue is independent of other textual differences.
But I think he has missed the point that average heights vary over time and in different locations.
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5911/1/Johnson-David_and_Goliath_PhD_Thesis-2012.pdf
This again misses this basic point.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267942
Not part of the above discussion but in relation to changes over time.
Thanks for the resources; I'm bookmarking this page. I don't remember what the earliest witnesses say about Goliath's height. There could have been textual change, but I'm not sure of that point. Interesting question.
It is interesting and this is what I mean by fine tuning. To me it makes no difference to the essentials of the account. Goliath was very tall & David was short.
To me, trying to establish the original text is important. The historical, geographical, and narratival details are important since we're dealing with God's Word. On the other hand, I know we have examples where the numbering of armies or animals might be called into question. I need to research the Goliath issue, but I believe the Bible writers thought it was important to get his height as right as possible.
A quick search of the Goliath issue shows that the oldest MSS apparently did attribute a shorter height to him. The difference comes with the Masoretic text, which states that Goliath "six cubits and a span" (almost 1o ft. tall).
The Masoretic text of course was produced in the Middle Ages, around the 1oth century CE. What accounts for the change in the text? Was it simply that the height of men and women varied during the intervening years from the 1st century CE to the medeival period?
I do recall studying some works about this subject, but it's been a little while.
Thinking on. The Johnson thesis does make an interesting point. Is Goliath's height the focus of importance or is it his relative height to Saul? (Not too much taller). If the shorter height is original we may be generally overlooking the point that Saul should and could have been the one who defended the people and relied on Jehovah. Demonstrating the state of his character.
Post a Comment